(27) MYO-REPS VS. TRADITIONAL HYPERTROPHY: STRENGTH RECOVERY AND FATIGUE DISSIPATION FOLLOWING ONE WEEK OF TRAINING CESSATION

Purpose: This study aimed to determine if seven days (7D) of short-term training cessation is enough time to observe full maximal strength recovery in strength-trained subjects following 8-weeks of hypertrophy focused training. Methods: Eight strength-trained males (22.1 ± 2.0 yrs; 175.2 ± 5.6 cm; 84.2 ± 18.6 kg; DOTS: 266.8 ± 35.1) completed one-repetition maximum (1RM) testing for back squat (BS), bench press (BP), and deadlift (DL). Total strength was quantified as the summation of all three lifts (1RM TOT). 1RM testing was conducted at three time points: pre-training (T1), post-training (T2), and after 7D of training cessation (T3). Participants completed either a MYO-Rep (MYO) or traditional hypertrophy (TRAD) program for 8 weeks, with training volume matched between groups. Results: From T1 to T2, MYO demonstrated small to moderate increases in maximal strength across all lifts, with BS (+20.0 kg, 16.2%, g = 0.61), BP (+10.0 kg, 10.7%, g = 0.53), DL (+25.9 kg, 18.5%, g = 0.86), and TOT (+55.8 kg, 15.5%, g = 0.73). In contrast, TRAD showed only small improvements, with BS (+9.1 kg, 6.2%, g = 0.25), BP (+3.8 kg, 3.3%, g = 0.23), DL (+16.6 kg, 10.3%, g = 0.46), and TOT (+29.5 kg, 6.9%, g = 0.35). Following T2 to T3, MYO retained small strength increases in BS (+5.4 kg, 3.7%, g = 0.22) and trivial changes in BP (+1.1 kg, 1.1%, g = 0.20), DL (+4.5 kg, 2.9%, g = 0.10), and TOT (+11.1 kg, 2.7%, g = 0.20). In contrast, TRAD showed only trivial changes across all lifts, suggesting little to no meaningful recovery (BS: +1.5 kg; 0.5%, g = 0.04; BP: +2.3 kg, 1.9%, g = 0.13; DL: +2.3 kg, 1.1%, g = 0.06; TOT: +6.0 kg, 1.2%, g = 0.07). From T2 to T3, the relationship between training volume and strength weakened across most measures, suggesting a diminished role of prior workload in short-term strength retention. Strength retention followed the trend BP < TOT < BS < DL, with BP maintaining the strongest correlation (r = 0.926), while all other lifts declined (TOT: r = 0.897, BS: r = 0.865, DL: r = 0.754). Notably, only the BP did not decrease, highlighting potential differences in short-term retention between upper- and lower-body strength following hypertrophy training. Although training volume did not differ significantly (p > 0.05), differences in intra-session time distribution (MYO:TRAD = 2:3) may have influenced recovery trends. Conclusions: 7D of short-term training cessation allowed for partial strength restoration in MYO but did not support recovery in TRAD, suggesting that training load distribution may influence short-term recovery dynamics following hypertrophy-focused training periods where accumulative fatigue masking 1RM strength is expected. Practical Applications: MYO-style hypertrophy training offers a time-efficient, fatigue-resistant alternative to TRAD protocols. MYO allows athletes to complete the same workload in ~2/3 of the time while reducing excessive fatigue, making it ideal for time-constrained individuals, competitive athletes, and those seeking hypertrophy without risking ≥7 days of 1RM suppression. Sport scientists and coaches should consider MYO-based approaches to enhance hypertrophy and strength recovery without the trade-offs of high-volume TRAD training. Acknowledgements: None